The following motion was moved by Senator O'Rourke on Wednesday, 9 October 2002:

That Seanad Éireann, recognising the views expressed by Members of the 22nd Seanad concerning the issue of Seanad reform, instructs a sub-committee of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges to be established so that proposals can be brought forward.

Debate resumed on amendment No. 1:

After "brought forward" to add "and that the sub-committee first of all makes proposals which ensure that Seanad Éireann in its structures and procedures observes both the letter and the spirit of equal status legislation particularly but not exclusively with regard to discrimination on grounds of age."

–(Senator Tuffy).

There is a need to examine our work to see what can be done regarding reform of the House, which has been so eminently presided over by you, a Chathaoirligh, and your predecessors. I do not agree, however, with the dictum "If it's not broken, don't fix it", which is a wearisome argument. If that was the case, we would all be the same until our dying day. We need to look at ourselves and change. I want to see the Seanad Chamber as a potent force for dialogue, debate and change. At the end of our five years of work, I do not want to see everything remaining the same as it was when we began. While we will have good dialogue and debate, we must also bring about change.

It is worth reading the documentation on constitutional and Seanad reform, which is available in the Oireachtas Library. I must leave them back because other people may be looking for them.

Since 1936 there has been a constant theme, that there is a need for change and a need for the Chamber to refashion and reshape itself, and still it has not happened. It is a general belief that what goes on here is worthy and I am fully in agreement with that but, as I said, we need to look sharply at ourselves.

What we said at the Committee on Procedure and Privileges, as you will be aware, a Chathaoirligh, was that we would have the debate in the House, then we would meet again to see what we could do within our own remit and parameters as of now. We would come up with ideas from that, then seek outside observations – we have not come to the shape of that at all yet – and see where we would go with that. Interestingly, the Taoiseach asked me yesterday what had happened the debate on Seanad reform and he was keen to hear what would come out of it.

We should strike while the iron is hot. When we go about the reform, for instance, we should invite people give their observations to us in public. Academics, local representatives and vocational groups would tell us in public how they think this should be, in the same way as Deputy Jim O'Keeffe and Deputy Lenihan, who is now Minister of State, conducted their constitutional reform debate. I could see public submissions to a reform committee as being extremely useful.

If we are to take that road, which remains a decision for the Committee on Procedure and Privileges committee, we should have the help of a secretariat. The Clerk of the Seanad and her team work long hours. They are painstaking and punctilious, as are all the Members, but if we are to set this up on a quasi-professional basis, we would need to have some outside help. That remains to be seen. The Minister for Finance can close his purse firmly and say, "Away with you, that is all fanciful," but we hope he will not do so and might agree.

I have noted the views of Members. Of the educational people, Senator Ross took the Chair before you were appointed, a Chathaoirligh, and he said it should all change. He would say, "Be gone" to the Taoiseach's nominees and the vocational groups elected by the local authorities, but he never mentioned his own area, the University Panel. Then somebody else stood up and spoke just about the University Panel but not about how they got here, apart from the fact that it was an arduous route. It is clear that there are many vested interests all around the House, and I fully understand that. This will not be a simple theorem where the formula comes out QED and one size fits all. That cannot be, but there is a need.

I want to see a position where this House is regarded as satisfying, fulfilling and worthwhile. One of the Commission reports, perhaps the 1959 one, recommended the abolition of the Seanad, echoing an earlier report. However, all that is negative and we need to be positive about it.

On a purely prosaic and practical note, I could not believe when I came here that electronic voting, which is in place in the Dáil, is not in place in the Seanad. Perhaps that will be raised at Committee on Procedure and Privileges, and perhaps that is where such matters should be raised. Why should we be second class citizens? Perhaps it is supposed that we are not able to work electronic voting, so we are not getting it but the Dáil is getting it. If so, that is a dumbed down approach to the issue.

I am really speaking about what we will be doing at Committee on Procedure and Privileges, which is renewing the case again, getting our domestic house in order as to the limits of what we can do and then moving on to whatever outside expertise, public consultations, secretariat assistance, etc. we will need for our reform debate. Around the House there is general agreement on this matter. I thank you, a Chathaoirligh, for the opportunity to speak on the issue.

There are three areas at which we must look, one of which is the composition of the Seanad. The composition is made up of five panels to which the majority of Senators are elected, the University Panel and the nominees of the Taoiseach. The question is how that change should reflect today's thinking.

I have no difficulty with the local government electoral body, which has elected me on many occasions and given me the mandate to come in here and to reflect their views, because there is no better body of people who know what they want. I do not want vested interests in here who will be furthering a particular issue and, therefore, accountable on that issue only.

I am as good as anybody on a particular issue. I am an educationist and I come from the Cultural and Educational Panel. I can represent those views, but I am also a person who can reflect the views of the whole of Ireland on a full range of issues – the environment, justice, traffic and so on. I will be as good as anybody and so will every other Member of this Chamber.

Having listened to the debate here, there is no question that the system is a good one. The question is how to refine it to make it more aligned with present day thinking. The concept is still right.

I would not change the local government electoral college, which is made up of the councillors who put us here. There is no better professional body of people who know how to get representatives who will reflect the interests as they see it, and it has worked well. However, the debate must move forward.

I do not have hang-ups on the question of whether the electoral college should be formed on a national basis or whether it should be regionalised. I am very open on such thinking and I want us to further that thinking to see where we could go from here. I will let that debate take its own course.

The role of the Seanad concerns me. Since I became a Member in 1992 I have seen some little changes, unbeknown to ourselves. I felt initially there was not much being done here. It was a laid back type of Seanad. However, between 1997 and 2002, I saw it as an invigorating Chamber, where we were initiating many Bills. I can remember the Local Government Bill, the Education Bill and the Fisheries Bill, to mention but a few, all of which were initiated in the Seanad. There was great debate, particularly on Committee Stage where we teased out many problems which perhaps would have been missed if the Bills had been initiated in the other Chamber. Without meaning any disrespect to the other Chamber, I think we provide more time to tease out Bills, particularly on Committee Stage. I would welcome the initiation of a greater amount of legislation in this Chamber and many opportunities to tease out Bills initiated in this House.

We do not receive fair media recognition. I do not seek attention for myself, but if one were to ask members of the public what we do in the Seanad, they would probably reply that they do not know. We do good work here, but it is not reported.

Senators who want media attention try to raise a topical matter on the Order of Business in the hope that "Oireachtas Report" will pick it up. That is wrong. We are not receiving the media attention we deserve. Senators do fine work and make great contributions to debates on many of the issues of the day, but this is not reflected in the media. This is unfair to us, our electorate and society at large.

I welcome the European Union (Scrutiny) Bill which was debated in the Seanad last week. The Seanad can play an important role in this core area. We often hear of decisions and regulations coming from Europe, into which Seán Citizen has no input. We may discover that a directive has been implemented in relation to the quality of water, habitats and so on. We often hear about these directives by chance simply because there happens to be a heritage area in our locality. This is not good enough. We have a golden opportunity to use this Chamber to scrutinise legislation and monitor what is about to happen in Europe.

The Seanad lacks back-up services. We should not be the poor relation of the Dáil. I am not comfortable being a poor relation to anyone. We should stand alone and let the two Houses complement each other. We have fine people in this Chamber. We have to travel throughout Ireland to get ourselves elected and must be extremely professional at our job in order to be elected to this House. It is much harder to get elected to the Seanad than to the Dáil, yet we continually look over our shoulders at the other House. This must not continue. Every Member of this House is capable of putting on a fine performance. Far from looking over our shoulders at the other House we should stand alone. We have a role to play in complementing the other House, but should not feel that we are the poor relation. That concept does not rest well with me.

We have aired this topic and thrashed it out. I have discussed it on many occasions since I first came to the Seanad in 1992. We all have a role in making Seanad reform worthwhile. We have a golden opportunity to make the Seanad the watchdog of European legislation and become more involved in committees of the Houses. Given the democratic deficit in the institutions of the European Union, we should use this Chamber as a watchdog. Let us link with the public and let it know that fine work is being done here. Now that we have thrashed the matter out here let us have an open debate outside the Chamber.

Perhaps we should refine our electoral system, but let us not get rid of our local government electoral college. Local authority members are a first class electorate. They have never failed to elect good people to the Seanad. We might, however, look at the system of nomination of candidates by nominating bodies. I do not have sufficient knowledge of this aspect of our electoral system, but would welcome an open discussion on it.

Within the next year I hope this debate will be taken from the floor of this House and continued in another forum. I feel like a broken record and do not think I could keep talking on points I have raised time and again.

There is room for improvement. Let us compliment this House by making it a worthwhile place. Let us judge it on what it is. It is a fine House and we should not undermine it by treating it as the poor relation of the other House.

During the years Senators were always delighted to hear that the Taoiseach, whoever it might have been, was about to come into the Seanad. We are always delighted to hear that the Taoiseach has taken time to come to the Seanad. Now, because of the rules of the other House, the Taoiseach is to be released from parliamentary duties on a Thursday and should pay this House the courtesy of spending part of that time in the Seanad. It would raise the importance of the House in a very simple way if the Taoiseach were to respond to our various queries. It would be a simple matter to agree on how such a session of one or two hours on a Thursday could be incorporated into the activities of the House. This would be a welcome gesture by the Taoiseach to reform of the Seanad.

There has been much criticism of the method by which we are elected, which is said to be undemocratic. I put the other side of it. There were suggestions that Members should be elected on the same day as the general election and that the Seanad was seen by some people as the place where young tigers were trained for future graduation to the other House while being seen by others, as in my own case, as a House for failed politicians. If we subscribe to that notion, we fail ourselves. We should vigorously use the Seanad for its proper purpose. If we allow it to become anything else in the eyes of Members of the other House, the media or the people, we do ourselves a disservice. We should not allow that to happen.

On the question of direct elections, one can imagine driving through the countryside and urban areas where posters have been put up by the various election candidates from political parties and independents outlining their policies. If there were also posters for Seanad candidates in the same places, one can imagine the confusion it would create, as well as the problems caused to the environment. It is unworkable.

We should investigate the matter and be open enough to engage with those who have greater experience than ourselves, such as professional people who may have suggestions about meaningful reform. We should bring them in and listen to them. If there are critical things that must be said about the present situation, they should be taken on the cheek to help bring in worthwhile reform. Many suggestions will also come internally from the staff in the Seanad. The professional staff here are second to none and they have valuable experience gained from looking, listening and regulating debate from one end of the year to the other. They have important suggestions to make with regard to reform and improvement.

The biggest problem for Senators is that, despite asking questions and looking for information, we never get replies. The task is obviously seen as too great. A Minister comes to the House, presents his or her papers and suggestions and then goes. That is the end of it, other than with regard to legislation. We must have some sort of mechanism whereby Members can ask a question, whether written or oral, and get a reply. That facility, which is available in the Dáil, is worthwhile.

While we are supposedly not representing a constituency, our constituency is the country at large, as Senator Ormonde said. It does not have a boundary and is not part of a county or urban area, but is far wider. We have a responsibility to that constituency even though it is far wider than the Dáil constituency we are more familiar with. If we had the opportunity to ask a question and get a direct reply from a Minister, it would be an important step.

Last week, we had the advantage of having the President of the European Parliament in the House to deliver a speech on the important issue of the Nice treaty. That practice is something we should encourage and expand on. However, there is another side and this was brought to my attention by a person who voted "No". Between 35% and 40% of the turnout voted "No" in most constituencies. There was no balance in this House or opportunity for anybody to speak on the "No" side, although I recognise that one would want to be the Lord to identify the person best suited to speak on that side. However, a sizeable percentage of the electorate, not aligned to any pressure group, wanted to have its voice represented in that debate. Unfortunately, this House did not have the opportunity to enable that but from now on, if we have a voice on a particular issue, we should balance that by inviting people from the other side to present their views.

We could start this process by dealing with items of national importance on the Order of Business. If we could get a reply to the issues raised there within a reasonable time, regardless of the content of that response, it would be of value.

I also agree with Senator Ulick Burke that, as our Taoiseach is now modelling himself on the Queen of England and comes into Parliament very little—

There is a great deal of misinformation about the Seanad. Speaking as the son of a former Senator, I have to admit that I have only started to learn about the workings of the House in recent times. We need to educate politicians and the public about the powers and functions of the Seanad, with which I have been impressed so far. It was a good idea to invite the President of the European Parliament, Mr. Cox, to the House to speak to us. We should ask other public figures from outside bodies to come here to express their views about their areas of knowledge. Such contributions would benefit all Senators, as none of us has all the answers.

The process of nomination of Senators by the Taoiseach should be reviewed. My father was nominated by the then Taoiseach, Dr. Garret Fitzgerald, in the 1980s. The fact that nominees are generally drawn from the political parties does not do the House any favours. Senator Maurice Hayes and the late former Senator Gordon Wilson are notable exceptions, as their nominations added greatly to the House. There is a danger that political parties will abuse the Taoiseach's privilege of nominating Members by not choosing people of the calibre and reputation of the men I have mentioned.

Senators should be given far more backup facilities than is the case at present. I inquired in the clerk's office yesterday about putting together a Private Members' Bill, but was informed that no backup was available. It is not fair that I should have to do it myself and that I should have to get my party to provide legal advice. We are in opposition and do not have the benefits of legal advice and a huge Civil Service.

Senators also face difficulties in relation to secretarial facilities. I realise we do not have a constituency per se, but believe we should be given the option of having a home office, especially as we invariably spend only one and a half days in Dublin each week. As most Senators are not from Dublin, it would make more sense to make secretarial services available outside Dublin, to allow us to do more work, especially research, when we are at home. If we do not have these services, the quality of debate in the House will suffer.

I am delighted to be a Senator and hope I am given a long stint in this House. I look forward to bringing forward some Private Members' Bills and receiving the full co-operation of Government Senators when I do.

I recall a succession of Senators raising a succession of issues. In my early days as a Senator, considerable shock was felt by many when Senator Norris was first elected. It was a shock to elected Members of both Houses as Senator Norris was, not only a public advocate of homosexual law reform, but his personal sexual orientation was also a matter of public record. I do not doubt that the shock changed the thinking of both Houses. The presence of somebody of Senator Norris's considerable qualities was a huge step on the road to the loss many people's prejudices. The peculiarities of a second Chamber facilitated his election, just as it helped mine.

The Seanad is an anomaly which we do not need. Democracy functions perfectly well in countries like Denmark, Sweden and New Zealand that do not have a second House. Irish democracy is much richer as a result of having two Chambers, however. The fact that the Seanad has only 60 Members means that virtually everybody, from every political party, can have a major responsibility in the area of legislation if they so desire.

I pay tribute to the former Leader of the House, Deputy Cassidy, whom I often teased. During his time as Leader, one third of Government legislation was introduced in the Seanad. The only people who failed to notice this development were the gentlemen and ladies of the press, who continue to write about the Seanad as it used to be. When major or minor legislation is being introduced in the Seanad, the initial debate takes place in this House. In a properly functioning society, legislation which changes the way the State deals with society or groups of people is always important. There is no such thing as unimportant legislation. If legislation is introduced in this House, it deserves to be noticed, talked about and reported. The public will not know about it if it is not reported.

Some years ago I met a group of social workers in my constituency who were given the job of implementing a Children Act that had just been passed. They were referring to the Bill, as passed by the Dáil, to advise them in their work as they were not aware that it had been dramatically amended in the Seanad. Deputy Noel Treacy was the Minister responsible for the matter at the time. They assumed that the Bill as passed by the Dáil was the final version, as they believed the popular myth that the Seanad never changes anything. The social workers, who were implementing and enforcing legislation for a health board, were using the wrong legislation. I blame the lack of publicity of the Seanad's work for their error.

There are many other things that the Seanad could do. We have to remember that there ought to be a tension between Parliament and Government in a properly functioning democracy. Reality dictates that a Government will try to build a parliamentary majority, but the theory is that there should be a tension between it and Parliament, as the Government is accountable to Parliament. It is probably constitutionally incorrect to imply that any Minister is accountable to the Seanad, but most Ministers accept a degree of scrutiny in this House and we would serve our purposes well if we extended and formalised that scrutiny.

There should be a form of question time on a regular basis. We could start by giving Members of the Seanad the right to ask written questions and secure the same service that Members of the Dáil receive, even if we do not reach the formal stage of oral questions because, in my experience, only a few are reached. It is an anomaly that if I want information about something from a Government Department by way of a parliamentary question, I must get a colleague in the Dáil to table it. It should be possible to do that without too many changes.

There is now a ridiculous amount of duplication. If one third of legislation is introduced in this House, and dealt with conscientiously and thoroughly, why then when it goes to Dáil Éireann is it still treated as if it has just been introduced? There are procedures in both Houses that duplicate each other. If legislation goes through a thorough period of analysis in Dáil Éireann, there is no purpose in repeating it here, or simply taking the amendments our parties put down in the Dáil and re-introducing them. That is not a good way to do business.

The manner in which select committees deal with legislation could be examined. There could be a joint committee system to deal with legislation, as well as other matters, so the time of either House would not be wasted repeating arguments that were thoroughly rehearsed in one House. It would also free up time in both Houses to deal with other matters.

The fundamental problem in Irish society and politics is that we can never deal with things when the public is concerned about them. Some reasons for that are perfectly in order – matters may be sub judice or at a sensitive time – but there is a list of areas where parliamentary scrutiny is impossible.

There is no point discussing an extension of the number of days the Seanad sits because most Members would not be keen to meet five days a week. We must, however, ensure that the time allocated is used as efficiently as possible and that we avoid the repetition that currently goes on. It could be argued that if a Bill passes Committee Stage in this House, the other House should deal with it on Report Stage, and vice versa. There would be less repetition but achievements such as that of Senator Ross on the opinion poll legislation would still be possible.

I appeal to the Government to deal with the anomalous franchise for the six university Seanad seats. Some might ask if should they exist at all. There is nothing about our democracy that would be undermined by the abolition of the university seats, any more than there would be anything fundamental undermined by the abolition of the Seanad. We will not abolish the Seanad and, unless we provoke people beyond patience, no one will get around to abolishing the university seats. It is a great anomaly, however, that only two universities can elect people when the majority of graduates in any given year are from outside those two universities. I propose that a simple, geographically based set of constituencies, similar to those for the European elections, should be established and everyone who completes three years of a third level course, diploma or degree, should have a vote based on where they live. The only reason for excluding people who have two year certificates is that the numbers would not be feasible. Three years seems to be ideal, although I would not want the franchise only to exist for degree holders. This has become an irritant and is offensive to those who did not go through the two traditional universities.

Our amendment reflects our irritation at the decision taken to distinguish between the Labour Party and the Independents based on the new concept of collective seniority. It effectively amounted to age discrimination. While my colleagues on the Independent benches deserve many things, they are not sufficiently enfeebled by their age to need discrimination of the form permitted in the equal status legislation. It is permissible to discriminate on age grounds where elderly people require it, but the Independent Members do not seem to be lacking vigour to such an extent that they need it. It is, therefore, extraordinary that younger people are discriminated against in favour of older people and that we have a parliamentary group with more women which is discriminated against in favour of a group with less women. The legislation allows for positive discrimination on both grounds. As long as that anomaly continues, we in the Labour Party will continue to find ways to raise what we believe to be an injustice.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Motion agreed to.